(meteorobs) The Disintegrating Meteor

[GeoZay at aol.com]

Wes>>  A 10" SCT is a rather massive device and  standard mounts damp out
mirror flop very quickly.  If it was bumped as  you suggest then it should
have been reported. <<
 
I use to do a lot of deep sky photography with my 10"SCT (an old Meade) and  
I routinely would hold a piece of cardboard in front of the scope for several  
seconds to eliminate any jiggling. I got my scope in 1988...since then  I 
understand they have upgraded the mount for that very reason. 
 
 Wes>>What you see when a scope is bumped is all the  stars
dancing in parallel over the whole field. <<
 
yes...I wonder how many stars would happen to be in the field of view  bright 
enough to register with a 1 second of the 2 second exposure time and not  be 
washed out by a nearby moon? During major showers with a full moon, I'd have  
a hell of a time finding bright enuf stars to get in the frame for referencing 
 later. I'd make anywhere between 5 and 10 minute exposures at the darkest 
part  of the sky I could find...usually towards the north.
 
Wes>> The mountain ridge, although
faint, would probably be  invisable if there were that much camera motion.<<
 
I don't know...that first one second could be perfectly burned in, although  
dim...afterwards everything equally blurred that doesn't have any light on  
it...or producing light. If any of the mountain was captured with the first  
second, I'd expect to see it still there afterwards if the 2nd second was  
jiggled.

Wes>>  The "worms" in the trail do not  parallel the trail as they would if
the effect were from camera  motion. <<
 
If what I was seeing were 3 or 4 stars, yes they should have parallel  
trailing.Maybe I'm not seeing multiple stars afterall?...Maybe still just one  star 
with overlapping points in the jiggling process to make it look like 3 or 4  
stars?
 
Wes>>And why is the rest of the image above
the mountain star  free? <<
 
Bright moon just below the mountain washing out the sky not too far  away.
 
Wes>> A single meteor, debris or landing light perhaps,
but  stars come in bunches all over the image and move in parallel.   The
closer I look the more certain I am that camera motion is not part of  the
answer.<<
 
The closer I look, the more certain I am that the photographed image is not  
that of a meteor.

George>> If this was a meteor, it would indicate  to me that it was quite far
away...maybe 150 miles?

Wes>> Agreed.  This would tend to make the trail detail  unresolvable,
particularly for a meteor comming from the east since the trail  would be
even further.<<
 
This is the way I see it too.

George>> I'm beginning to   lean towards the object being an airplane that
switched on its landing lights  momentarily. 

Wes>> Well, at that plate scale a  moonlit contrail could look very much
like what is in the  image..<<
 
I don't know...definitely not a meteor trail. As for being an airplane  
contrail, I don't know that much about them to say one way or the other. But if  I 
had to choose one over the other that made the most sense to me, it would be  
the airplane contrail.

George>> A possibility, but my money is more  on the airplane theory at the
moment.<<

Wes>>    Looking good to me as well.  <<
 
I think we've whipped this horse pretty good. Too bad we can't see any tail  
numbers overlying the image somewhere to be conclusive. :O)
GeoZay